Next Article in Journal
Effects of Soil Warming on Soil Microbial Metabolism Limitation in a Quercus acutissima Forest in North Subtropical China
Next Article in Special Issue
Insect Diversity in the Coastal Pinewood and Marsh at Schinias, Marathon, Greece: Impact of Management Decisions on a Degraded Biotope
Previous Article in Journal
Variation of Cones Production in a Silver Fir (Abies alba Mill.) Clonal Seed Orchard
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Forests
Volume 14
Issue 1
10.3390/f14010018
forests-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Water Retention Potential in Novel Terrestrial Ecosystems Restored on Post-Mine Sites: A Review

by
Pranav Dev Singh
*,
Anna Klamerus-Iwan
and
Marcin Pietrzykowski
Department of Ecological Engineering and Forest Hydrology, Faculty of Forestry, University of Agriculture in Krakow, 31-425 Kraków, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Forests 2023, 14(1), 18; https://doi.org/10.3390/f14010018
Submission received: 22 November 2022 / Revised: 16 December 2022 / Accepted: 19 December 2022 / Published: 22 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Management and Restoration of Post-disturbance Forests)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Many activities are conducted with the view of reducing CO2 emission from fossil fuels, but mining extraction will continue to be important for energy sources, mineral and metal ores, and the general economy. This activity has negative environmental consequences such as habitat loss, water scarcity, and soil degradation in novel ecosystems. Additionally, climate change, drought, and desertification accelerate important problems with water retention. From one point of view, identifying and conserving critical regions for ecological sustainability are issues of fundamental importance, but on the other hand, post-mine sites could provide additional carbon sinks and improve regional water retention (WR). This review paper analyses different studies focusing on the impact of the reclamation of mining sites on the water retention properties of soil. Water retention in reclaimed mining soil (RMS) increased considerably after various restoration efforts were implemented. The amount of water holding capacity in RMS was mostly affected by reclamation methods, soil properties, soil biota, restoration duration, and vegetation type. The major conclusions from the analysis were that (i) the bulk density of reclaimed mining soil ranges from 1.35 to 1.50 g/cm3 and decreases with restoration duration; (ii) Soil fauna increases soil water storage capacity and plant litter and earthworms convert litter to fecal pellets, which increases water field capacity; and (iii) water holding capacity increases with duration of reclaimed sites and type of plants, i.e., afforestation and tree communities have higher WR than younger grasslands. Therefore, identification of the suitable reclamation method, restoration duration, vegetation type, and soil fauna are important factors for increasing water retention capacity at a regional scale.

1. Introduction

Open coal mining is the preferred method for extraction because of its economic effectiveness, even though it results in significant disruption to the original landscapes due to massive and high-intensity mining operations (e.g., scraping, extraction, and hauling) [1]. In this type of mining, the “spoil” material topping the coal layers is separated and dumped in heaps on top-soil. Because spoil material is removed from considerable depths, it significantly differs from top soil [2,3,4,5,6]. Notably, highly land-consuming mining, both surface and underground, affects all ecosystem components. It turns the pre-mining landscape upside down and transforms it into a new technogenic environment called a “novel ecosystem,” which is often far from the state of equilibrium and therefore sensitive to failures [7,8]. The mine–soil system plays a crucial role in managing the mining area’s several subsystems, including the plant, water, and landscape components. Indeed, the quality of mine soil strongly influences the future direction of reclamation. Mine soils often have a coarser texture and a higher percentage of rock particles (sandy, loamy sand, and sandy loam) [5], which results in losses of water and nutrients from the root zone via deep percolation and preferential flow [6]. Many reclaimed mine soils have a high coarse particle content, which influences rooting depth, water holding capacity, and nutrient transport potential [7]. As a result, more research into the relationship between mine soil and water retention properties is required [8]. Reclamation and afforestation are considered to be the most successful methods for restoring the biological environment in mining sites [9,10,11,12,13,14,15]. Novel ecosystems [11] on spoil heaps are still an alien element in the landscape and a serious environmental challenge in many coal regions of Europe and the world. Knowledge in the field of technical handling of spoil heaps and their natural significance in urban and industrial areas facilitates the introduction and restoration of the ecological functions therein, including plant community succession, dynamics of soil processes, soil microbiological activity, afforestation efficiency, biomass, and carbon sequestration [10,11,16,17]. On the other hand, after reclamation, spoil heaps and the vegetation present thereon constitute the key forms of terrestrial ecosystems [17] for the provision of ecosystem services among which C sequestration and water retention are regarded as the most significant.
In post-mining soil, the quality of the litter has a major impact on the amount of carbon stored in the soil. Soil covered by vegetation with low litter C:N ratios generates organo-mineral aggregates that improve water storage, whereas plants with a high C:N litter ratio contain most of the organic matter in the Oe (partially decomposed litter horizon) and litter layers, which results in low soil-water storage [18]. Soil carbon and nitrogen are two significant components of soil organic matter pools. Unsustainable management in coal mining sites results in soil C and N depletion, and these sites are expected to become Greenhouse gases (GHGs) producers [15,19,20,21,22,23]. After mining and restoration, the concentration of soil organic carbon (SOC) in recovered mine soil decreases as compared to undisturbed soil [24,25,26,27,28]. At low organic carbon contents, the sensitivity of the water retention to changes in organic matter content was highest in sandy soils. Increased organic matter content resulted in increased water retention in sandy soils and decreased water retention in soils with a finer texture. Water retention increased in all soils when organic carbon levels were high [19].
The movement of water in mining sites depends on the soil development and the vegetation development [20]. Soil holds the water in the ecosystem, whereas vegetation is a consumer of water. However, the soil water transport mechanism is influenced by vegetation, which affects the soil mobility between compartments of the ecosystem and the external environment and determines the soil formation process. Plants and soil biota have a significant impact on water transport and storage through processes such as aggregate development, the establishment of a porosity matrix, plant water absorption, and rain interception by the vegetation. The development of vegetation cover reduces water intake to the soil through infiltration, increases the rate of moisture loss through transpiration, and decreases evaporation from the top soil [22,23]. Other ways for plants to influence water movement in the system include varying the permeability and the degree of water trapped by interception, as well as varying water intake and transpiration rates [26]. Rapidly growing vegetation results in substantial bioturbation by soil fauna and produces a deep organo-mineral soil horizon, which reduces total soil organic matter storage and also reduces soil water storage [18]. There are numerous studies that investigated the alteration of hydrological properties, soil properties, and vegetation by the impact of open-cast mining [22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39]. It is clear from Gilewska et al. [40] that restoring the chemical and physical qualities of the reclaimed soil is important for higher yield plant growth.
So far, no comprehensive information is available in the literature on the ecological correlations between the biotic elements of the post-mining ecosystem and the retention properties of soils in relation to the duration of the reclamation, soil fauna, and vegetation cover. Thus, it is important to review how water retention properties are affected by mine soil in novel ecosystems. Since there is very little research available, we review various factors influencing water retention properties in post-mining sites. Therefore, the objective of this review is (i) to compile an overview of the effect of soil properties and vegetation cover on water retention; (ii) to summarize the effect of mine age on the reclaimed and unreclaimed mine sites; and (iii) to provide future research scope.

2. Factors Influencing the Retention Properties of Novel Ecosystems

Parameters that affect the water retention of soil in novel ecosystems include vegetation cover, soil properties, and soil biota [22,37,38,39,40,41]. Hence, it is important to ensure the significant recovery of compacted subsurface soil and plant cover on recovered mine areas for regional water retention.

2.1. Effect of Soil Properties and Soil Biota on Water Retention

Loose placement of mining soils is used in order to restore hydrological flow channels that allows for water infiltration, storage, abstraction, and groundwater charging [37]. The amount of available soil water is determined by the link between rainfall and the rate of penetration of recovered mine soils and ground water conditions [38]. Water penetration is affected by a number of factors such as soil structure, coarse particles, and soil stability. Soil organic matter and soil biota activity, in turn, influence soil stability [39]. Poor conditions of the recovered mine soil, including soil compaction and a shortage of flora, lead to organic matter shortfalls, creating a negative feedback loop.
Soil aggregates are intermediate grains developed when major mineral particles are rearranged and fixed with soil organic matter [41,42,43]. They are commonly classified as large-sized aggregates (251–1999 μm) and small-sized aggregates (51–249 μm). [38,40,41] presented an extremely influential model for the creation of aggregates, subsequently revised by [44]. According to these theories, large-sized aggregates develop initially, mostly as a result of particle entanglement by fungal hyphae and stems (transitory bonding forces) and around new organic matter intakes. When these transitory bonding forces and particulate organic matter in large-sized aggregates decay into particles coated in saponins developed at time of decomposition, they become encrusted with mud grains and hence serve as the core for small-sized aggregates contained inside large-sized aggregates [45]. By transforming organic compounds, soil can also stimulate particles development and, thus, increases water retaining capacity [46].
Analyses of soil samples containing plant litter and earthworms demonstrated that even litter-feeding fauna may significantly improve the capacity of the soil to store water simply by converting litter to fecal pellets, which doubles the water field capacity (WFC) [47]. Even more significant is the development of aggregate particles by earthworms, which can significantly increase the soil’s water-holding capacity. Additionally, earthworms impact the size distribution of soil aggregates. De-compacting earthworms (e.g., Millsonia anomala) destroyed the macro-aggregates created by compacting earthworms, whereas compacting earthworms had a similar effect on the casts of de-compacting earthworms. This suggests that earthworms’ influence on soil structure dynamics is highly variable. Water retaining capacity is associated with an increase in wilting point in each of the aforementioned circumstances. Therefore, we can conclude that in both situations described above, soil fauna increased the soil’s capacity to store water, which was then theoretically available to the plants, as the rise in WFC was greater than the rise in wilting point [48].
When discussing the mining and restoration effects on RMS, it is necessary to cover all mechanical, chemical, and biological characteristic alterations. Although the sources of recovered mine soil vary significantly, resulting in bigger variances in the identical characteristic between different studies, the values of the same attributes continue to exhibit comparable patterns under similar reclamation circumstances. These characteristics display growing or declining patterns over time, which might serve as clear indicators of the reclamation impacts and viable restoration strategies (Table 1). Previously, researchers have proposed soil quality indices, vital for the reclamation of mine land [23,46,47,48,49,50,51,52]. The age sequence method is crucial for understanding the alteration in soil properties of the mine land ecosystem [18,23,53].
As the reclamation duration of mine soil increases, the field capacity increases and the wilting point decreases. Reclaimed mining soil (RMS) often has higher bulk densities because of the use of heavy machinery during mining and reclamation work [32]. As reclamation advances, the bulk density of RMS is reduced as a result of greater root penetration and soil porosity [54,55,56,57,58,59,60]. After one to three decades, soil bulk density can decrease to more acceptable values from ~1.49 to ~1.65 g/cm3 for roots and plants. After ten years of reclamation, the RMS bulk density of a dump site falls from 1.42 to 1.29 g/cm3 [37]. After mining and restoration, the concentration of soil organic carbon in the reclaimed soil decreases. Except in one case, the C:N ratio decreased when we compared undisturbed and disturbed soil. Soil organic carbon pools in reclaimed mine soils decreased quickly following mining operations, and the surface layer of the reclaimed mine soil had more soil organic carbon losses than the deep layer of the reclaimed mining soil, owing to the surface layer’s increased activity, dynamic nature, and exposure to adverse weather conditions.
The average volume of mesopores corresponding to the contents of potential water capacity (PWC) and water available capacity (AWC) to plants in anthropogenic humus horizons was 11.16 percent volume by volume and 6.95 percent volume by volume, respectively, and statistically significantly higher than the values in deeper soil horizons. In humus layers of reclaimed soils, there was more water capacity (43.42 mm), more water that could potentially be available (32.31 mm), and more water that plants could easily access (20.16 mm) than in natural soils [61].
Water retaining capacity of the reclaimed soil is higher than the retaining capacity of degraded mining soil, and the younger mine sites have low hydraulic conductivity [62]. The most important parameters that influence erosion intensity and are used to estimate soil loss rates during erosion process include soil erodibility (K) and saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks). K reflects how sensitive the soil is to external erosivity forces and is considered to be mostly affected by the structural stability of soil aggregates. On the other hand, Ks may have a significant effect on soil erosion by controlling the infiltration and drainage of surface runoff. It is one of the key characteristics of a soil’s infiltration capability [63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73]. Saturated hydraulic conductivity (K) is a key characteristic of soil, describing the rate of water flow, pathways of water movement partitioning precipitation water into surface runoff, and retention in the soil [64,65]. In contrast to low K, which increases surface runoff and erosion, high K speeds up water penetration and drainage and shortens the time it takes for agrochemicals to be retained in the soil matrix [69]. These parameters are also important for the evaluation of soil reclamation [58,61,62,63]. Espigares et. al. [74] monitored these parameters and found that when the rill erosion rate is 17 t/ha/year and the plant cover is 30%, vegetation regrowth is severely hampered, but this impact vanishes when the plant cover is more than 60%. The study also shows that when the plant cover percentage is increased from 30% to 60%, the surface runoff and sediment load decreases. As a result, when rill erosion networks are formed, human intervention will be required to limit water loss and to enhance plant colonization [75]. Wang et al. [76] demonstrated water retention characteristics of biopolymer-treated soil in a wide suction range and different biopolymers’ effects on vegetation growth in treated soil, and found that the water retention capacity of treated silt increases as the ratio increases. The water retention capacity of gellan gum was better than xanthan gum and guar gum. The rate of wilting in treated soil was significantly lower than in untreated soil. Water loss is reduced and water retention is enhanced as these gums have direct contact with the surface of charged clay particles in the soil pore space to intimately link the particles. Increased germination and plant development are both correlated with increased water retention capacity in the soil. In a study by Zhang et al. [77], a series of microscopic tests, water retention characteristics tests, and shear tests were carried out on silt, which is known to have poor engineering properties, to explore the effect and mechanism of xanthan gum treatment on the water retention and shear strength characteristics of silt during the wetting process. The data revealed that the treated silt’s water retention capacity improves as xanthan gum concentration rises; moreover, a hysteresis effect is evident. As the silt’s moisture content rises, its cohesiveness and internal friction angle sharply drop, and its strength dramatically declines. The influence of initial water content on swelling potential may be attributed to the microstructure feature and hydration development that results in different degrees of macro-microstructure coupling [78].
Over the years, many scientists have examined the property of soil erodibility and the factors that affect it (e.g., soil physicochemical properties, vegetation, and soil organic matter) [55,56,57,58,59,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86]. In their study, Liu et al. [87] demonstrated that K at 0–10 cm is lower than K in subsequent soil levels due to the external supply of organic matter. In topsoil (0–20 cm), the typical K varies from 0.0252 to 0.0519, with an average value of 0.0403. The Ks values differ considerably, (0.006–2.278 m/day) and they tend to decrease along with soil depth. Horizontally, the K factor at 0–10 cm and 50–60 cm exhibits a decreasing tendency, whereas in other soil strata, it does not seem to display any spatial distribution pattern. On the other hand, the Ks at 0–10 cm has a striped distribution pattern, whereas in later soil strata it follows an uneven pattern.

2.2. Effect of Vegetation Cover and Reclamation Duration on Water Retention

Vegetation cover grows as reproductive age progresses. The rates of this growth will undoubtedly vary according to the kind of flora. For instance, Frouz [18] discovered that although biomass developed quicker in reclaimed alder plantations than in unclaimed post-mining sites early on, the gap between the reclaimed and the unclaimed sites declined with time, and the older unclaimed areas had even greater biomass than the reclaimed sites. Increased plant cover resulted in an increase in water usage via transpiration [71,81,88,89,90,91,92]. The soil substrate’s composition coupled with the deficiency of water and nitrogen have generally been regarded as possible explanations for the challenges encountered in developing plant cover in Europe’s populated and industrialized and metropolitan regions [75,80,92].
The persistent levels of nutrients for plant development are a critical component governing the cycling of nutrients in soils for primary production in plant communities [90,93,94,95,96]. Frouz [18] uses two examples, as demonstrated in the development of site A and site B, 30-year-old soils at two neighboring locations. Site “A” had been recovered and leveled before seedlings of alder (Alnus glutinosa) were planted. Alder is a N2-fixing tree that yields litter with a low carbon–nitrogen proportion. As a result, the alder site supported a diverse macrofauna population with a greater density of earthworms (Lumbricina). In comparison, site B remained unreclaimed and retained the wavy format created by heaping; it became overgrown with an unexpected regeneration dominated by Salix caprea, Betula pendula, and Populus tremula, and had a less abundant macrofauna, with the absence of Lumbricina species, which are responsible for mixing litter with soil. The absence of earthworms (Lumbricina) mixing on the natural regeneration plot resulted in broad fermenting on the soil’s surface. On Site A, the litter was rapidly fractured and mixed with the soil in the alder crop, generating an organo–mineral layer. After 30 years of development, both locations had a comparable water regime, but the alder plantation had more moisture and hence more soil-water storage.
In a study conducted by Cejpek et al. [88], various soil parameters (bulk density, porosity, water holding capacity) were analyzed in unreclaimed sites (5, 15 and 25-year-old). The unreclaimed areas were colonized by shrubs, whereas the reclaimed areas were planted with pine, spruce, oak, alder, or grassland (the meadows were created by the spreading of topsoil and grass seed). The main source of soil organic matter in the artificially recovered spoils is the vegetation introduced via reclamation, and its bio productivity determines organic soil inputs. The positive effects of forestation on early soil-forming processes have been confirmed on reclaimed coal mine spoils planted for 25 years. This results in the faster decomposition of tree litter, creating more mobile organic compounds that move deeper into the mineral profile. Changes in organic matter content are considered the primary factor in the observed variances in soil physical characteristics such as bulk density, specific gravity, porosity, and soil aggregation in recovered mining spoil.
The RMS bulk density varied between 1.35 to 1.50 g/cm3. It decreased with age and was identical for the reclaimed and the unreclaimed soil, except for the bulk density in the reclaimed sites that had been the spread with top soil and planted with grass 20 years before the study: had the highest bulk density [89,97]. The lowest bulk density was recorded at the reclaimed site planted with alder. Water retaining capacity varied between 45% and 63%, and it was higher in old sites than in younger sites. Water retention capacity was greatest in the reclaimed soil planted with alder and lowest in grass seeded site with top soil spread. Field capacity and wilting points ranged from 35% to 57% and from 26% to 29% respectively, and both were higher in the reclaimed soil than in the unreclaimed soil. Hydraulic conductivity varied between 0.0037 and 0.0076 m/s, and it was lower across all sites. The values of hydraulic conductivity were highest in the young, unreclaimed sites and lowest in the reclaimed sites planted with oak.
From the various studies [31,53,69,73], we can conclude that although the reclaimed post-mining sites had a larger water holding capacity than the unreclaimed sites, water limitation did not differ significantly between these two types of sites because the wilting threshold occurred at a higher percentage of soil water content in the reclaimed sites. Because plant biomass is much higher in reclaimed post-mining areas than in unreclaimed post-mining areas, the amount of water consumption should be higher in the reclaimed post-mining areas.
Table
Table 1. Effect of reclamation process and mining on soil properties.
Table 1. Effect of reclamation process and mining on soil properties.
CharacteristicsDepth of Soil (cm)Undisturbed Soil/Control GroupReclaimed SoilMining EffectsEffectTime Period (Year) after ReclamationLand Use/PlantReferences
Coarse fragment (%)0–452.4 (Undisturbed Soil)52.4Rise 19Forest–shrub–grass[95]
0–129.3 (Undisturbed Soil)40.5Rise 25Nonagricultural land use[96]
Bulk density (gm/cm3)0–151.5 (Undisturbed Soil)1.29–1.42RiseFall30Pasture, hay, forest[37]
0–201.67 (Control Group)1.35–1.50 Fall20Forbland[97]
0–101.50 (Control Group)1.53 Fall40Vegetation[98]
0–151.20 (Control Group)1.46 Rise>19Vegetation[98]
0–151.35 (Undisturbed Soil)1.69Rise <2Grassland[97]
Permeability (%)0–4038.30–40.15 (Control Group)40.92–50.19 Rise12Forbland[97]
0–4052 (Control Group)62 Rise25–30Forbland[89]
Water retaining capacity
(%)		0–1031.38 (Control Group)34.95 RiseNot AvailableVegetation[99]
0–2032.4 (Control Group)35.1 Rise16Forest[98]
0–4062.5 (Control Group)55 Fall25–30Forbland[89]
Wilting point (%)0–4028.7 (Control Group)39 Rise25–30Forbland[89]
Soil infiltration rate (cm)0–106.45 (Control Group)25.23 Rise>19Vegetation[100]
C:N ratio0–1010.81 (Control Group)10.99 Fall>19Vegetation[96]
0–1512.2–15.2 (Undisturbed Soil)8.4–12.0Fall <2Grassland[21]
0–153.4 (Control Group)11.9 Rise60Grassland[101]
Soil organic matter (gm/kg)0–202.15 (Control Group)9.23 Rise15Forbland[97]
Hydraulic Conductivity (Ks)
(m/d)		0–114.0 (Control Group)4.5 Rise40Vegetation[98]
11–803.2(Control Group)0.3 Rise5Vegetation[99]
Iron (mg/kg)0–107.96 (Control Group)8.39 FallNot AvailableVegetation[99]
Zinc (mg/kg)0–1014.98 (Control Group)14.79 FallNot AvailableVegetation[99]
0–15100.9 (Undisturbed Soil)43.49Fall Vegetation[99]
Lead (mg/kg)0–101.98 (Control Group)2.52 FallNot AvailableVegetation[99]
0–1529.9 (Undisturbed Soil)7.03Fall Vegetation[99]
Chromium (mg/kg)0–15167.5 (Undisturbed Soil)1112.33Rise Vegetation[99]

3. Conclusions and Future Studies

Numerous studies have concluded that soil fauna such as alder (Alnus glutinosa) plays an important role in increasing water retention capacity. Soil’s capacity to sustain constant soil moisture levels throughout the year is better in the reclaimed sites with rich soil fauna, litter intake, and weathering intensity than in the unreclaimed post-mining sites. Soil moisture levels were very variable in the unreclaimed areas where the original diversity was retained. Water retaining capacity of the reclaimed soil is higher than retaining capacity of degraded mining soil, and the younger mine sites have low hydraulic conductivity. However, the soil water content at the wilting point was greater in the reclaimed soils than in the unreclaimed ones, indicating that water availability for plants was comparable in the reclaimed and unreclaimed soils. These findings also reveal that the effect of changes in organic carbon content on soil water retention depends on the proportion of soil texture. Soil aggregate and soil microbiology, in particular, are strongly affected by the plant’s species. Soil field capacity, aggregate, microbiological composition, and total microorganisms were all significantly improved in areas that were covered by the shrub species.
Changes in soil texture and other physicochemical characteristics occur throughout time, resulting in a merging of diverse ecosystems. A variety of plant species can develop in such settings. They consist of species (mostly dominant ones) that represent a diversity of life forms, life strategies, and ecological groupings. Due to the complexity and susceptibility of mining regions, it is difficult to research and perform reclamation; hence, more extensive studies are necessary. Even though there is a lot of information about the effects of mining and reclamation, there is an urgent need to add new ideas and different measurements to the reclamation research and practices.
In the near future, scientifically sound publications on (i) novel ideas and techniques for assessing mining-induced soil degradation; (ii) innovative strategies for mitigating soil degradation; and (iii) systematic investigations into reclaimed mining soil are especially needed.

Author Contributions

P.D.S.; writing—original draft preparation, M.P. and A.K.-I.; grant arrangement, revision, and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This paper was supported by a project founded from the NCN no. 2020/39/B/ST10/00862.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Guan, Y.; Zhou, W.; Bai, Z.; Cao, Y.; Wang, J. Delimitation of supervision zones based on the soil property characteristics in a reclaimed opencast coal mine dump on the Loess Plateau, China. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 772, 145006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Šourková, M.; Frouz, J.; Fettweis, U.; Bens, O.; Hüttl, R.F.; Šantrůčková, H. Soil development and properties of microbial biomass succession in reclaimed post mining sites near Sokolov (Czech Republic) and near Cottbus (Germany). Geoderma 2005, 129, 73–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Ahirwal, J.; Maiti, S.K. Assessment of soil properties of different land uses generated due to surface coal mining activities in tropical Sal (Shorea robusta) forest, India. CATENA 2016, 140, 155–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Kumar, S.; Maiti, S.K.; Chaudhuri, S. Soil development in 2–21 years old coalmine reclaimed spoil with trees: A case study from Sonepur-Bazari opencast project, Raniganj Coalfield, India. Ecol. Eng. 2015, 84, 311–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Fan, X.; Song, Y.; Zhu, C.; Balzter, H.; Bai, Z. Estimating ecological responses to climatic variability on reclaimed and unmined lands using enhanced vegetation index. Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 1100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Dominati, E.; Patterson, M.; Mackay, A. A framework for classifying and quantifying the natural capital and ecosystem services of soils. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69, 1858–1868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Hobbs, R.J.; Higgs, E.S.; Hall, C.M. Intervening in the New Ecological World Order. In Novel Ecosystems; Halls, C.M., Ed.; Wiley Blackwell: Oxford, UK, 2013; Volume 14, pp. 124–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Martín-Duque, J.F.; Sanz, M.A.; Bodoque, J.M.; Lucía, A.; Martín-Moreno, C. Restoring earth surface processes through landform design. A 13-year monitoring of a geomorphic reclamation model for quarries on slopes. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 2010, 35, 531–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Zhen, Q.; Ma, W.; Li, M.; He, H.; Zhang, X.; Wang, Y. Reprint of “Effects of vegetation and physicochemical properties on solute transport in reclaimed soil at an opencast coal mine site on the Loess Plateau, China”. CATENA 2017, 148, 17–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Asghari, S.; Abbasi, F.; Neyshabouri, M.R. Effects of soil conditioners on physical quality and bromide transport properties in a sandy loam soil. Biosyst. Eng. 2011, 109, 90–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Upadhyay, N.; Verma, S.; Pratap Singh, A.; Devi, S.; Vishwakarma, K.; Kumar, N.; Pandey, A.; Dubey, K.; Mishra, R.; Kumar Tripathi, D. Soil Eco physiological and microbiological indices of soil health: A study of coal mining site in Sonbhadra, Uttar Pradesh. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2016, 16, 778–800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Bai, Z.; Liu, X.; Fan, X.; Zhu, C.; Yang, R. Ecological Reconstruction Research and Practice in the Large Open-Pit Coal Mine of the Loess Plateau, China. In Bio-Geotechnologies for Mine Site Rehabilitation, 1st ed.; Prasad, M.N.V., Favas, P.J.d., Maiti, S.K., Eds.; Elsevier: Beijing, China, 2018; pp. 323–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Hu, Z.Q.; Atkinson, K. Principle and method of soil reconstruction for coal mine land reclamation. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Mine Planning and Equipment Selection, Calgary, Canada, 10 June 1998. [Google Scholar]
  14. Hobbs, R.J.; Higgs, E.; Hall, C.M.; Bridgewater, P.; Chapin, F.S., III; Ellis, E.C.; Ewel, J.J.; Hallett, L.M.; Harris, J.; Hulvey, K.B. Managing the whole landscape: Historical, hybrid, and novel ecosystems. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2014, 12, 557–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Pietrzykowski, M.; Krzaklewski, W. Reclamation of Mine Lands in Poland. In Bio-Geotechnologies for Mine Site Rehabilitation, 3rd ed.; Prasad, M.N.V., Favas, P.J.d., Maiti, S.K., Eds.; Elsevier: Warsaw, Poland, 2018; pp. 493–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Pietrzykowski, M.; Daniels, W.L. Estimation of carbon sequestration by pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) ecosystems developed on reforested post-mining sites in Poland on differing mine soil substrates. Ecol. Eng. 2014, 73, 209–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Stalmachova, B.; Zampachova, D.; Frankova, H.; Luzarova, D. Alternative methods of restoration and regeneration of postmining landscape. In Proceedings of the 11th International Multidisciplinary Scientific Geo conference and EXPO-Modern Management of Mine Producing, Geology and Environmental Protection, Albena Resort, Bulgaria, 19–25 June 2011. [Google Scholar]
  18. Frouz, J. Changes of Water Budget during Ecosystem Development in Post-Mining Sites at Various Spatiotemporal Scales: The Need for Controlled Systems. In Hydrology of Artificial and Controlled Experiments, 2nd ed.; Liu, J.-F., Gu, W.-Z., Eds.; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2018; Volume 2, pp. 95–106. [Google Scholar]
  19. Shrestha, R.K.; Lal, R. Ecosystem carbon budgeting and soil carbon sequestration in reclaimed mining soil. Environ. Int. 2006, 32, 781–796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Zipper, C.E.; Burger, J.A.; Skousen, J.G.; Angel, P.N.; Barton, C.D.; Davis, V.; Franklin, J.A. Restoring forests and associated ecosystem services on Appalachian coal surface mines. Environ. Manag. 2011, 47, 751–765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Shrestha, R.K.; Lal, R. Changes in physical and chemical properties of soil after surface mining and reclamation. Geoderma 2011, 161, 168–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Ganjegunte, G.K.; Wick, A.F.; Stahl, P.D.; Vance, G.F. Accumulation and composition of total organic carbon in reclaimed coal mine lands. Land Degrad. Dev. 2009, 20, 156–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Rawls, W.J.; Pachepsky, Y.A.; Ritchie, J.C.; Sobecki, T.M.; Bloodworth, H. Effect of soil organic carbon on soil water retention. Geoderma 2003, 116, 61–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Arnold, S.; Williams, E.R. Quantification of the inevitable: The influence of soil macrofauna on soil water movement in rehabilitated open-cut mined lands. Soil 2016, 2, 41–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Shrestha, R.K.; Lal, R. Carbon and nitrogen pools in reclaimed land under forest and pasture ecosystems in Ohio, USA. Geoderma 2010, 157, 196–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Frouz, J. Soil Biota and Ecosystem Development in Post Mining Sites, 2nd ed.; CRC Press: Prague, Czech Republic, 2008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Nagase, A.; Dunnett, N. Amount of water runoff from different vegetation types on extensive green roofs: Effects of plant species, diversity and plant structure. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2012, 104, 356–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Ahirwal, J.; Maiti, J.; Satyanarayana Reddy, M. Development of carbon, nitrogen and phosphate stocks of reclaimed coal mine soil within 8 years after forestation with Prosopis juliflora (Sw.) Dc. CATENA 2017, 156, 42–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Bendfeldt, E.S.; Burger, J.A.; Daniels, W.L. Quality of Amended Mine Soils After Sixteen Years. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2001, 65, 1736–1744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Carter, C.T.; Ungar, I.A. Aboveground vegetation, seed bank and soil analysis of a 31-year-old forest restoration on coal mine spoil in Southeastern Ohio. Am. Midl. Nat. 2002, 147, 44–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Evanylo, G.K.; Abaye, A.O.; Dundas, C.; Zipper, C.E.; Lemus, R.; Sukkariyah, B.; Rockett, J. Herbaceous Vegetation Productivity, Persistence, and Metals Uptake on a Biosolids-Amended Mine Soil. J. Environ. Qual. 2005, 34, 1811–1819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Fettweis, U.; Bens, O.; Hüttl, R.F. Accumulation and properties of soil organic carbon at reclaimed sites in the Lusatian lignite mining district afforested with Pinus sp. Geoderma 2005, 129, 81–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Juwarkar, A.A.; Mehrotraa, K.L.; Nair, R.; Wanjari, T.; Singh, S.K.; Chakrabarti, T. Carbon sequestration in reclaimed manganese mine land at Gumgaon, India. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2010, 160, 457–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Keskin, T.; Makineci, E. Some soil properties on coal mine spoils reclaimed with black locust (Robinia pceudoacacia L.) and umbrella pine (Pinus pinea L.). Agacli-Istanbul. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2009, 159, 407–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Nyamadzawo, G.; Shukla, M.K.; Lal, R. Spatial variability of total soil carbon and nitrogen stocks for some reclaimed minesoils of southeastern Ohio. Land Degrad. Dev. 2008, 19, 275–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Shrestha, R.K.; Lal, R. Soil Carbon and Nitrogen in 28-Year-Old Land Uses in Reclaimed Coal Mine Soils of Ohio. J. Environ. Qual. 2007, 36, 1775–1783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Shrestha, R.K.; Lal, R. Land use impacts on physical properties of 28 years old reclaimed mine soils in Ohio. Plant Soil 2008, 306, 249–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Shukla, M.K.; Lal, R.; Ebinger, M.H. Physical and Chemical Properties of a Minespoil Eight Years after Reclamation in Northeastern Ohio. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2005, 69, 1288–1297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Ussiri, D.A.N.; Lal, R.; Jacinthe, P.A. Soil Properties and Carbon Sequestration of Afforested Pastures in Reclaimed Minesoils of Ohio. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2006, 70, 1797–1806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Gilewska, M.; Otremba, K. Some aspects of agricultural reclamation the post-mining grounds of the Konin and Adamów Brown Coal Mines. Inżynieria Ekol. 2018, 19, 22–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Smólczyński, S.; Orzechowski, M.; Kalisz, B.; Krupiński, K. Selected properties of reclaimed mine soils in the area of a former gravel mine in north-eastern Poland. Soil Sci. Annu. 2020, 71, 66–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Burger, J.A. Sustainable mined land reclamation in the eastern U. S. coalfields: A case for an ecosystem reclamation approach. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual Meeting of the American Society of Mining and Reclamation, Bismarck, ND, USA, 11–16 June 2011. [Google Scholar]
  43. Evans, D.M.; Zipper, C.E.; Hester, E.T.; Schoenholtz, S.H. Hydrologic Effects of Surface Coal Mining in Appalachia (U.S.). J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2015, 51, 1436–1452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Bronick, C.J.; Lal, R. Soil structure and management: A review. Geoderma 2005, 124, 3–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Six, J.; Elliott, E.T.; Paustian, K. Soil Structure and Soil Organic Matter II. A Normalized Stability Index and the Effect of Mineralogy. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2000, 64, 1042–1049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Fageria, N.K. Role of soil organic matter in maintaining sustainability of cropping systems. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2012, 43, 2063–2113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Six, J.; Elliott, E.T.; Paustian, K. Soil macroaggregate turnover and microaggregate formation: A mechanism for C sequestration under no-tillage agriculture. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2000, 32, 2099–2103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Tisdall, J.M.; Oades, J.M. Organic matter and water-stable aggregates in soils. J. Soil Sci. 1982, 33, 1365–2389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Oades, J.M. The role of biology in the formation, stabilization and degradation of soil structure. Geoderma 1993, 56, 377–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Six, J.; Paustian, K.; Elliott, E.T.; Combrink, C. Soil Structure and Organic Matter I. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2000, 64, 681–689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Frouz, J.; Elhottová, D.; Kuráž, V.; Šourková, M. Effects of soil macrofauna on other soil biota and soil formation in reclaimed and unreclaimed post mining sites: Results of a field microcosm experiment. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2006, 33, 308–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Khosro, M.; Gholamreza, H.; Shiva, K.; Yousef, S. Soil management, microorganisms and organic matter interactions: A review. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2011, 10, 19840–19849. [Google Scholar]
  53. Frouz, J.; Pižl, V.; Tajovský, K. The effect of earthworms and other saprophagous macrofauna on soil microstructure in reclaimed and un-reclaimed post-mining sites in Central Europe. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 2007, 43, 184–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Mukhopadhyay, S.; Maiti, S.K.; Masto, R.E. Use of Reclaimed Mine Soil Index (RMSI) for screening of tree species for reclamation of coal mine degraded land. Ecol. Eng. 2013, 57, 133–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Mukhopadhyay, S.; Maiti, S.K.; Masto, R.E. Development of mine soil quality index (MSQI) for evaluation of reclamation success: A chrono-sequence study. Ecol. Eng. 2014, 71, 10–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Sinha, S.; Masto, R.E.; Ram, L.C.; Selvi, V.A.; Srivastava, N.K.; Tripathi, R.C.; George, J. Rhizosphere soil microbial index of tree species in a coal mining ecosystem. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2009, 41, 1824–1832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Muñoz-Rojas, M.; Erickson, T.E.; Dixon, K.W.; Merritt, D.J. Soil quality indicators to assess functionality of restored soils in degraded semiarid ecosystems. Restor. Ecol. 2016, 24, 43–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Rodrigue, J.A.; Burger, J.A. Forest Soil Productivity of Mined Land in the Midwestern and Eastern Coalfield Regions. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. 2004, 68, 833–844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Jones, A.T.; Galbraith, J.M.; Burger, J.A. Development of a forest site quality classification model for mine soils in the appalachian coalfield region. In Proceedings of the 22nd American Society of Mining and Reclamation Annual National Conference, Breckenridge, CO, USA, 18 June 2005. [Google Scholar]
  60. Pietrzykowski, M. Tree species selection and reaction to mine soil reconstructed at reforested post-mine sites: Central and eastern European experiences. Ecol. Eng. 2019, 142, 100012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Guzman, J.G.; Ussiri, D.A.; Lal, R. Soil physical properties following conversion of a reclaimed minesoil to bioenergy crop production. CATENA 2019, 176, 289–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Wali, M.K. Ecological succession and the rehabilitation of disturbed terrestrial ecosystems. Plant Soil 1999, 213, 195–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Feng, Y.; Wang, J.; Bai, Z.; Reading, L. Effects of surface coal mining and land reclamation on soil properties: A review. Earth-Sci. Rev. 2019, 191, 12–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Yang, R.X.; Wang, J.M. The change law of RMSs characteristics in grassland opencast coal mine dump of China. Adv. Mater. Res. 2013, 726–731, 4831–4837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Maqsoud, A.; Bussière, B.; Mbonimpa, M. Low saturated hydraulic conductivity covers. In Hard Rock Mine Reclamation: From Prediction to Management of Acid Mine Drainage; Bussière, B., Guittonny, M., Eds.; CRC Press: Warsaw, Poland, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  66. Santos, J.C.N.D.; Andrade, E.M.D.; Medeiros, P.H.A.; Guerreiro, M.J.S.; Palácio, H.A.D.Q. Land use impact on soil erosion at different scales in the Brazilian semi-arid. Rev. Cienc. Agron. 2017, 48, 251–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Blanco-Canqui, H.; Wienhold, B.J.; Jin, V.L.; Schmer, M.R.; Kibet, L.C. Long-term tillage impact on soil hydraulic properties. Soil Tillage Res. 2017, 170, 38–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Zhao, C.; Shao, M.A.; Jia, X.; Nasir, M.; Zhang, C. Using pedotransfer functions to estimate soil hydraulic conductivity in the Loess Plateau of China. CATENA 2016, 143, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Jadczyszyn, J.; Niedźwiecki, J. Relation of Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity to Soil Losses. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2005, 14, 431–435. [Google Scholar]
  70. Iaaich, H.; Moussadek, R.; Baghdad, B.; Mrabet, R.; Douaik, A.; Abdelkrim, D.; Bouabdli, A. Soil erodibility mapping using three approaches in the Tangiers province –Northern Morocco. Int. Soil Water Conserv. Res. 2016, 4, 159–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Shipitalo, M.J.; Owens, L.B.; Bonta, J.V.; Edwards, W.M. Effect of No-Till and Extended Rotation on Nutrient Losses in Surface Runoff. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2013, 77, 1329–1377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Wang, G.; Wu, B.; Zhang, L.; Jiang, H.; Xu, Z. Role of soil erodibility in affecting available nitrogen and phosphorus losses under simulated rainfall. J. Hydrol. 2014, 514, 180–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Yusof, M.F.; Azamathulla, H.M.; Abdullah, R. Prediction of soil erodibility factor for Peninsular Malaysia soil series using ANN. Neural Comput. Appl. 2014, 24, 383–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Espigares, T.; Moreno-De Las Heras, M.; Nicolau, J.M. Performance of Vegetation in Reclaimed Slopes Affected by Soil Erosion. Restor. Ecol. 2011, 19, 35–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Moreno-de Las Heras, M.; Espigares, T.; Merino-Martín, L.; Nicolau, J.M. Water-related ecological impacts of rill erosion processes in Mediterranean-dry reclaimed slopes. CATENA 2011, 84, 114–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Wang, S.; Zhao, X.; Zhang, J.; Jiang, T.; Wang, S.; Zhao, J.; Meng, Z. Water retention characteristics and vegetation growth of biopolymer-treated silt soils. Soil Tillage Res. 2023, 225, 105544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Zhang, J.; Meng, Z.; Jiang, T.; Wang, S.; Zhao, J.; Zhao, X. Experimental Study on the Shear Strength of Silt Treated by Xanthan Gum during the Wetting Process. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 6053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Chen, B.; Peng, F.; Zhang, L. Investigation on swelling characteristics of GMZ bentonite with different initial water contents. Ann. Nucl. Energy 2023, 181, 109565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Dumas, P.; Printemps, J. Assessment of soil erosion using USLE model and GIS for integrated watershed and coastal zone management in the South Pacific Islands. In Proceedings of the Interpraevent, International Symposium in Pacific Rim, Taipei, Taiwan, 26 April 2010; pp. 856–866. [Google Scholar]
  80. Abel, S.; Peters, A.; Trinks, S.; Schonsky, H.; Facklam, M.; Wessolek, G. Impact of biochar and hydro char addition on water retention and water repellency of sandy soil. Geoderma 2013, 202–203, 183–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Tanner, S.; Katra, I.; Argaman, E.; Ben-Hur, M. Erodibility of waste (Loess) soils from construction sites under water and wind erosional forces. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 616–617, 1524–1532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Lal, R. Tillage effects on soil degradation, soil resilience, soil quality, and sustainability. Soil Tillage Res. 1993, 27, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Bonilla, C.A.; Johnson, O.I. Soil erodibility mapping and its correlation with soil properties in Central Chile. Geoderma 2012, 189–190, 116–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Deng, Y.; Shen, X.; Xia, D.; Cai, C.; Ding, S.; Wang, T. Soil Erodibility and Physicochemical Properties of Collapsing Gully Alluvial Fans in Southern China. Pedosphere 2019, 29, 102–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Wang, H.; Zhang, G.H.; Li, N.N.; Zhang, B.J.; Yang, H.Y. Soil erodibility as impacted by vegetation restoration strategies on the Loess Plateau of China. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 2019, 44, 796–807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Zhu, B.; Li, Z.; Li, P.; Liu, G.; Xue, S. Soil erodibility, microbial biomass, and physical-chemical property changes during long-term natural vegetation restoration: A case study in the Loess Plateau, China. Ecol. Res. 2010, 25, 531–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Liu, M.; Han, G. Distribution of soil nutrients and erodibility factor under different soil types in an erosion region of Southeast China. PeerJ 2021, 9, e11630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Cejpek, J.; Kuráž, V.; Vindušková, O.; Frouz, J. Water regime of reclaimed and unreclaimed post-mining sites. Ecohydrology 2018, 11, e1911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Cejpek, J.; Kuráž, V.; Frouz, J. Hydrological properties of soils in reclaimed and unreclaimed sites after brown-coal mining. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2013, 22, 645–652. [Google Scholar]
  90. Sinclair, T.R.; Hammer, G.L.; Van Oosterom, E.J. Potential yield and water-use efficiency benefits in sorghum from limited maximum transpiration rate. Funct. Plant Biol. 2005, 32, 945–952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Horodecki, P.; Jagodziński, A.M. Tree species effects on litter decomposition in pure stands on afforested post-mining sites. For. Ecol. Manag. 2017, 406, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Woźniak, G.; Sierka, E.; Wheeler, A. Urban and Industrial Habitats: How Important They Are for Ecosystem Services. In Ecosystem Services and Global Ecology; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2018; pp. 169–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  93. Schimel, J.P.; Bennett, J. Nitrogen mineralization: Challenges of a changing paradigm. Ecology 2004, 85, 591–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Frouz, J.; Prach, K.; Pižl, V.; Háněl, L.; Starý, J.; Tajovský, K.; Materna, J.; Balik, V.; Kalčík, J.; Řehounková, K. Interactions between soil development, vegetation and soil fauna during spontaneous succession in post mining sites. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 2008, 44, 109–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Wang, J.; Zhang, M.; Bai, Z.; Guo, L. Multi-fractal characteristics of the particle distribution of reconstructed soils and the relationship between soil properties and multi-fractal parameters in an opencast coal-mine dump in a loess area. Environ. Earth Sci. 2015, 73, 4749–4762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Thurman, N.C.; Sencindiver, J.C. Properties, Classification, and Interpretations of Mine-soils at Two Sites in West Virginia. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1986, 50, 181–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Fu, Y.; Lin, C.; Ma, J.; Zhu, T. Effects of plant types on physico-chemical properties of reclaimed mining soil in Inner Mongolia, China. Chin. Geogr. Sci. 2010, 20, 309–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Koſodziej, B.; Bryk, M.; Sſowiſska-Jurkiewicz, A.; Otremba, K.; Gilewska, M. Soil physical properties of agriculturally reclaimed area after lignite mine: A case study from central Poland. Soil Tillage Res. 2016, 163, 54–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Sen, S.; Kumar, V. Evaluating soil quality and bio-efficacy study of Cajanus cajan L. In coal mine-degraded land. Turk. J. Agric. For. 2016, 40, 499–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Rahe, N.H.; Williard, K.W.J.; Schoonover, J.E. Restoration of Riparian Buffer Function in Reclaimed Surface Mine Soils. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2015, 51, 898–909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Lorenz, K.; Lal, R. Stabilization of organic carbon in chemically separated pools in reclaimed coal mine soils in Ohio. Geoderma 2007, 141, 294–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Singh, P.D.; Klamerus-Iwan, A.; Pietrzykowski, M. Water Retention Potential in Novel Terrestrial Ecosystems Restored on Post-Mine Sites: A Review. Forests 2023, 14, 18. https://doi.org/10.3390/f14010018

AMA Style

Singh PD, Klamerus-Iwan A, Pietrzykowski M. Water Retention Potential in Novel Terrestrial Ecosystems Restored on Post-Mine Sites: A Review. Forests. 2023; 14(1):18. https://doi.org/10.3390/f14010018

Chicago/Turabian Style

Singh, Pranav Dev, Anna Klamerus-Iwan, and Marcin Pietrzykowski. 2023. "Water Retention Potential in Novel Terrestrial Ecosystems Restored on Post-Mine Sites: A Review" Forests 14, no. 1: 18. https://doi.org/10.3390/f14010018

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop